Women in the Inner Circle: Gender and Director Networks After the Fracturing of the Corporate Elite

References

• Aral S, Muchnik L, Sundararajan A (2009) Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106(51):21544–21549.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk L, Cohen A, Ferrell A (2009) What matters in corporate governance? Rev. Financial Stud. 22(2):783–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benton RA (2016) Corporate governance and nested authority: Cohesive network structure, actor-driven mechanisms, and the balance of power in American corporations. Amer. J. Sociol. 122(3):661–713.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benton RA (2017) The decline of social entrenchment: Social network cohesion and board responsiveness to shareholder activism. Organ. Sci. 28(2):262–282.Link, Google Scholar
• Benton RA, Cobb JA (2019) Eyes on the horizon? Fragmented elites and the short-term focus of the American corporation. Amer. J. Sociol. 124(6).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berkhemer-Credaire B, Sonnabend S (2018) Gender Diversity Index. 2020 Women on Boards, http://2020wob.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2020WOB_GDI_Report_2018_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
• Bernardi RA, Bosco SM, Vassill KM (2006) Does female representation on boards of directors associate with Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” list? Bus. Soc. 45(2):235–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bilimoria D, Piderit SK (1994) Board committee membership: Effects of sex-based bias. Acad. Management J. 37(6):1453–1477.Google Scholar
• Blair-Loy M (2009) Competing Devotions: Career and Family Among Women Executives (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Boivie S, Graffin SD, Oliver AG, Withers MC (2016) Come aboard! Exploring the effects of directorships in the executive labor market. Acad. Management J. 59(5):1681–1706.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Box-Steffensmeier JM, Freeman JR, Hitt MP, Pevehouse JCW (2014) Time Series Analysis for the Social Sciences (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Broome LL, Conley JM, Krawiec KD (2011) Dangerous categories: Narratives of corporate board diversity. North Carolina Law Rev. 89:759.Google Scholar
• Burris V (2005) Interlocking directorates and political cohesion among corporate elites. Amer. J. Sociol. 111(1):249–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt R (1998) The gender of social capital. Ration. Soc. 10(1):5–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bushee BJ (1998) The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Rev. 73(3):305–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bushee BJ (2001) Do institutional investors prefer near-term earnings over long-run value? Contemp. Accounting Res. 18(2):207–246.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Byron K, Post C (2016) Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Corp. Gov. Internat. Rev. 24(4):428–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2010) Microeconometrics Using Stata, revised ed. (Stata Press, College Station, TX).Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2015) Count panel data. Baltagi BH, ed. Oxford Handbook Panel Data (Oxford University Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
• Cao Y, Dhaliwal D, Li Z, Yang YG (2014) Are all independent directors equally informed? Evidence based on their trading returns and social networks. Management Sci. 61(4):795–813.Link, Google Scholar
• Casciaro T, Piskorski MJ (2005) Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(2):167–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chang EH, Milkman KL, Chugh D, Akinola M (2018) Diversity thresholds: How social norms, visibility, and scrutiny relate to group composition. Acad. Management J. 62(1):144–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen G, Crossland C, Huang S (2016) Female board representation and corporate acquisition intensity. Strategic Management J. 37(2):303–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Childs S, Krook ML (2009) Analysing women’s substantive representation: From critical mass to critical actors. Gov. Opposition 44(2):125–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chu JSG, Davis GF (2016) Who killed the inner circle? The decline of the American corporate interlock network. Amer. J. Sociol. 122(3):714–754.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Claringbould I, Knoppers A (2007) Finding a ‘normal’ woman: Selection processes for board membership. Sex Roles 56(7–8):495–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook A, Glass C (2018) Women on corporate boards: Do they advance corporate social responsibility? Human Relations 71(7):897–924.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cumming D, Leung TY, Rui O (2015) Gender diversity and securities fraud. Acad. Management J. 58(5):1572–1593.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davidson WN, Xie B, Xu W (2004) Market reaction to voluntary announcements of audit committee appointments: The effect of financial expertise. J. Accounting Public Policy 23(4):279–293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF (1991) Agents without Principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(4):583–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF (1993) Who gets ahead in the market for corporate directors: the political economy of multiple board memberships. Acad. Management Proc. 1993(1):202–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF, Robbins G (2005) Nothing but net? Networks and status in corporate governance. Preda KK, Cetina A., ed. The Sociology of Financial Markets (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 290–311.Google Scholar
• Deutsch Y, Ross TW (2003) You are known by the directors you keep: Reputable directors as a signaling mechanism for young firms. Management Sci. 49(8):1003–1017.Link, Google Scholar
• DiCarlo L (2002) America’s most overworked directors. Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/2002/08/06/0806directors.html.Google Scholar
• Dobbin F, Jung J (2010) Corporate board gender diversity and stock performance: The competence gap or institutional investor bias board diversity and corporate performance: filling in the gaps. North Carolina Law Rev. 89:809–840.Google Scholar
• Doreian P (1989) Models of network effects on social actors. Freeman LC, White DR, Romney AK, eds. Research Methods in Social Network Analysis (George Mason University Press, Fairfax, VA), 295–318.Google Scholar
• Dow MM (2007) Galton’s problem as multiple network autocorrelation effects: Cultural trait transmission and ecological constraint. Cross-Cultural Res. 41(4):336–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Makhijani MG, Klonsky BG (1992) Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 111(1):3–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elstad B, Ladegard G (2012) Women on corporate boards: Key influencers or tokens? J. Management Gov. 16(4):595–615.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erkut S, Kramer VW, Konrad AM (2008) Critical mass: Does the number of women on a corporate board make a difference. Vinnicombe S, Singh V, Burke R, Bilimoria D, Huse M, eds. Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Research and Practice (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK), 350–366.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fich EM, Shivdasani A (2006) Are busy boards effective monitors? J. Finance 61(2):689–724.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiss PC, Kennedy MT, Davis GF (2012) How golden parachutes unfolded: Diffusion and variation of a controversial practice. Organ. Sci. 23(4):1077–1099.Link, Google Scholar
• Garg S, Li Q (John), Shaw JD (2018) Undervaluation of directors in the board hierarchy: Impact on turnover of directors (and CEOs) in newly public firms. Strategic Management J. 39(2):429–457.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garg S, Li QJ, Shaw JD (2019) Entrepreneurial firms grow up: Board undervaluation, board evolution, and firm performance in newly public firms. Strategic Management J. 40(11):1882–1907.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geletkanycz MA, Boyd BK, Finkelstein S (2001) The strategic value of CEO external directorate networks: implications for CEO compensation. Strategic Management J. 22(9):889–898.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grosvold J, Brammer S (2011) National institutional systems as antecedents of female board representation: An empirical study. Corp. Gov. Internat. Rev. 19(2):116–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guldiken O, Mallon MR, Fainshmidt S, Judge WQ, Clark CE (2019) Beyond tokenism: How strategic leaders influence more meaningful gender diversity on boards of directors. Strategic Management J. 40(12):2024–2046.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harris IC, Shimizu K (2004) Too busy to serve? An examination of the influence of overboarded directors. J. Management Stud. 41(5):775–798.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hermalin BE, Weisbach MS (2001) Boards of Directors as an Endogenously Determined Institution: A Survey of the Economic Literature (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ (2005) Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line? J. Management 31(3):464–481.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ (2015) Board diversity: Beginning to unpeel the onion. Corp. Gov. Internat. Rev. 23(2):104–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ, Cannella AA, Harris IC (2002) Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: How do directors differ? J. Management 28(6):747–763.Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ, Cannella AA, Paetzold RL (2000) The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. J. Management Stud. 37(2):235–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ, Shropshire C, Cannella AA (2007) Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Acad. Management J. 50(4):941–952.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoobler JM, Masterson CR, Nkomo SM, Michel EJ (2018) The business case for women leaders: Meta-analysis, research critique, and path forward. J. Management 44(6):2473–2499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huse M, Solberg AG (2006) Gender‐related boardroom dynamics: How women make and can make contributions on corporate boards. Women Management Rev. 21:113–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobs JA (1992) Women’s entry into management: Trends in earnings, authority, and values among salaried managers. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(2):282–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jiraporn P, Singh M, Lee CI (2009) Ineffective corporate governance: Director busyness and board committee memberships. J. Banking Finance 33(5):819–828.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson JL, Daily CM, Ellstrand AE (1996) Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. J. Management 22(3):409–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kang E, Kroll M (2014) Deciding who will rule: Examining the influence of outside noncore directors on executive entrenchment. Organ. Sci. 25(6):1662–1683.Link, Google Scholar
• Kanter RM (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Karakowsky L, Siegel JP (1999) The effects of proportional representation and gender orientation of the task on emergent leadership behavior in mixed-gender work groups. J. Appl. Psych. 84(4):620–631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kesner IF (1988) Directors’ characteristics and committee membership: An investigation of type, occupation, tenure, and gender. Acad. Management J. 31(1):66–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knippen JM, Shen W, Zhu Q (2019) Limited progress? The effect of external pressure for board gender diversity on the increase of female directors. Strategic Management J. 40(7):1123–1150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B, Colomer J, Belinky M (2014) Structural equality at the top of the corporation: Mandated quotas for women directors. Strategic Management J. 35(6):891–902.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konrad AM, Kramer V, Erkut S (2008) Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organ. Dynam. 37(2):145–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kor YY, Misangyi VF (2008) Outside directors’ industry-specific experience and firms’ liability of newness. Strategic Management J. 29(12):1345–1355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kumar DK (2018) California state law mandates female board directors by 2019. Reuters (October 1), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-board-women-idUSKCN1MB172.Google Scholar
• Lacombe DJ (2004) Does econometric methodology matter? An analysis of public policy using spatial econometric techniques. Geogr. Anal. 36(2):105–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leenders RThAJ (2002) Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: Constructing the weight matrix. Soc. Netw. 24(1):21–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loop P, DeNicola P (2019) You’ve committed to increasing gender diversity on your board. Here’s how to make it happen. Harvard Bus. Rev., https://hbr.org/2019/02/youve-committed-to-increasing-gender-diversity-on-your-board-heres-how-to-make-it-happen.Google Scholar
• Marquardt C, Wiedman C (2016) Can shareholder activism improve gender diversity on corporate boards? Corp. Gov. Internat. Rev. 24(4):443–461.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsden PV, Friedkin NE (1993) Network studies of social influence. Sociol. Methods Res. 22(1):127–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Masulis RW, Mobbs S (2011) Are all inside directors the same? Evidence from the external directorship market. J. Finance 66(3):823–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonald ML, Westphal JD (2012) Access denied: Low mentoring of women and minority first-time directors and its negative effects on appointments to additional boards. Acad. Management J. 56(4):1169–1198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS (1996) What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Rev. Sociol. 22:271–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS (2013) The Fracturing of the American Corporate Elite (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS, Koenig T (1988) Economic concentration and corporate political behavior: A cross-industry comparison. Social Sci. Res. 17(4):287–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS, Stearns LB, Marquis C (2006) The conditional nature of embeddedness: A study of borrowing by large US firms, 1973–1994. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 71(2):310–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mun E, Jung J (2018) Change above the glass ceiling: Corporate social responsibility and gender diversity in Japanese firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 63(2):409–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murray J (2017) Interlock globally, act domestically: Corporate political unity in the 21st century. Amer. J. Sociol. 122(6):1617–1663.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Naumovska I, Wernicke G, Zajac E (2019) Last to come and last to go? On the complex role of gender and ethnicity in the reputational penalties for directors linked to corporate fraud. Acad. Management J. 63(3):881–902.Google Scholar
• Palmer D (1983) Broken ties - interlocking directorates and intercorporate coordination. Admin. Sci. Quart. 28(1):40–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perrault E (2015) Why does board gender diversity matter and how do we get there? The role of shareholder activism in deinstitutionalizing old boys’ networks. J. Bus. Ethics 128(1):149–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peterson CA, Philpot J (2007) Women’s roles on U.S. Fortune 500 boards: Director expertise and committee memberships. J. Bus. Ethics 72(2):177–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Post C, Byron K (2014) Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Acad. Management J. 58(5):1546–1571.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ragins BR, Townsend B, Mattis M (1998) Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. Acad. Management Perspect. 12(1):28–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL, Correll SJ (2006) Consensus and the creation of status beliefs. Soc. Forces 85(1):431–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roe MJ (2005) The inevitable instability of American corporate governance. Lorsch JW, Berlowitz L, Zelleke A, eds. Restoring Trust in American Business (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), Chapter 1.Google Scholar
• Rubin DB (2001) Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 2(3):169–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shipilov AV, Greve HR, Rowley TJ (2010) When do interlocks matter? Institutional logics and the diffusion of multiple corporate governance practices. Acad. Management J. 53(4):846–864.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shropshire C (2010) The role of the interlocking director and board receptivity in the diffusion of practices. Acad. Management Rev. 35(2):246–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singh V, Terjesen S, Vinnicombe S (2008) Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ? Eur. Management J. 26(1):48–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singh V, Vinnicombe S (2004) Why so few women directors in top UK boardrooms? Evidence and theoretical explanations. Corp. Gov. Internat. Rev. 12(4):479–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Skaggs S, Stainback K, Duncan P (2012) Shaking things up or business as usual? The influence of female corporate executives and board of directors on women’s managerial representation. Social Sci. Res. 41(4):936–948.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snijders TA, Bosker RJ (2012) Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling, 2nd ed. (Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Stearns LB, Mizruchi MS (1986) Broken-tie reconstitution and the functions of interorganizational interlocks: A reexamination. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(4):522–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taps J, Martin PY (1990) Gender composition, attributional accounts, and women’s influence and likability in task groups. Small Group Res. 21(4):471–491.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Terjesen S, Sealy R, Singh V (2009) Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corp. Gov. Internat. Rev. 17(3):320–337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Useem M (1984) The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity in the U.S. and U.K. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Useem M (2015) From classwide coherence to company-focused management and director engagement. Res. Sociol. Organ. 43:399–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Useem M, Karabel J (1986) Pathways to top corporate management. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 51(2):184–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang W, Neuman EJ, Newman DA (2014) Statistical power of the social network autocorrelation model. Soc. Netw. 38:88–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Khanna P (2003) Keeping directors in line: Social distancing as a control mechanism in the corporate elite. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(3):361–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Milton LP (2000) How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(2):366–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Stern I (2006) The other pathway to the boardroom: Interpersonal influence behavior as a substitute for elite credentials and majority status in obtaining board appointments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 51(2):169–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Stern I (2007) Flattery will get you everywhere (especially if you are a white male Caucasian): How ingratiation, boardroom behavior, and demographic minority status affect additional board appointments at US companies. Acad. Management J. 50:267–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Zajac EJ (1995) Who shall govern - CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Admin. Sci. Quart. 40(1):60–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Zajac EJ (1997) Defections from the inner circle: Social exchange, reciprocity, and the diffusion of board independence in U.S. corporations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1):161–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Withers MC, Hillman AJ, Cannella AA (2012) A multidisciplinary review of the director selection literature. J. Management 38(1):243–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Withers MC, Howard MD, Tihanyi L (2020) You’ve got a friend: Examining board interlock formation after financial restatements. Organ. Sci. 31(3):535–795.Link, Google Scholar
• Wittenberg-Cox A (2019) Shareholder activism pivots to gender. Forbes (March), https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2019/03/07/shareholder-activism-pivots-to-gender/?sh=445560698b93.Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2005) Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. J. Appl. Econometrics 20(1):39–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Zhu DH, Shen W, Hillman AJ (2014) Recategorization into the in-group: The appointment of demographically different new directors and their subsequent positions on corporate boards. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(2):240–270.Crossref, Google Scholar